Category: Accountability

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment international affairs

Stuck With It?

Poland, Pfizer, vaccine, European Union

Poland told Pfizer to stick it elsewhere. Now Pfizer’s suing for failure to pay for all the jabs . . . that Poland didn’t use. Or take. Or even allow in the country.

Pfizer’s a big company, of course, but you know we’re not talking about Celebrex or Fentanyl Citrate or Sonata here. We’re talking about The Jab. The one developed with BioNTech and contracted for by governments around the world.

As near as I can make out, it’s a breach of contract case.

But with a wrinkle.

Poland put a halt to pushing Pfizer’s COVID vaccine in April of 2022, and the people generally seem just fine with it, seeing as how they have a much, much lower rate of excess deaths now than does, say, Sweden, which pushed the vax for far longer. 

But why couldn’t Poland simply stop usage of the jab? 

After all, a customer shouldn’t be forced to take a medication, right? 

Well, the contract was not between Pfizer and Poles individually — this is the modern, statist world, after all — or even collectively, corporately, through the state. The contract was between Pfizer and the European Union!

And elements were secret. 

The Polish government, placed on the hook for the drug, was not allowed to see the whole contract.

Think of this as just one of the many ways that politicians who bash Big Pharma bent over backwards to give Big Pharma cushy, cushy deals.

But in court, how will those secret clauses play? I suspect that Pfizer’s prognosis may be negative.

Which would be a healthy outcome.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PickFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment

The Bums’ Rush

Gavin Newsom, Ji Jinping, China, San Francisco, propaganda

Californians have long been talking about cleaning up San Francisco from the waste laid to the city by its well-compensated bums along with coddled criminals, entitled inebriates, and the happy homeless. 

And then last week it happened. The city got cleaned up and scrubbed down. Darn quick.

All it took was the arrival of the President. 

Of China.

Xi Jinping touched down just days ago for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, at which our own Somnambulant-in-Chief also teetered around, so the clean-up crews worked overtime to make a good impression.

There’s been a lot of speculation about it all. Couldn’t those who have been creating this filthy and dangerous environment on the streets of San Fran have been dealt with (and not pampered) a long time ago?

Many have remarked: so it’s Xi whom San Francisco Democrats really look up to? Not their own citizens? Everyday San Franciscans don’t matter? Only The Eastern King of Genocidal Totalitarianism?

“Is the president embarrassed,” a reporter asked National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Monday, “that an American city needs to go through a total makeover to be presentable for his out-of-town guests?”

No real answer.

But what did the city do, exactly?

Moved the homeless out of the way, first. 

And then the streets were hosed off, the graffiti sanded or painted over.

Arguably, corralling the homeless from sector to sector of the city would be one way to disincentivize squatting, as would arresting and trying street-dwellers for public drug use and excretion — for some things must be kept private, not engaged in helter-skelter. 

Things like defecating. 

Sexual intercourse. 

Shooting up.

Years ago, no one had to explain this to anyone.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies tax policy

Kick the Can

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R.-Fla.) , Congress, spending

At first blush, it seems like the most pointless political move ever.

When Rep. Matt Gaetz (R.-Fla.) moved to oust Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R.-Cal.) from his role as Speaker of the House, lots of eyebrows were raised, and at least one pair of lips was licked. But did it make any sense?

This has never happened before, a House Speaker ousted by his own party mid-session.

That’s not an argument against the move, though. It was Gaetz who had blocked McCarthy back in January, through more than a dozen votes, allowing the moderate Republican to serve only with explicit conditions. Gaetz now says that McCarthy has failed to meet those conditions. Arguably, that’s accountability in action. Good?

Or mere revenge? After all, McCarthy had just made a deal with a sizable number of minority Democrats to fund the government and prevent a federal shutdown — thus kicking the overspending/insolvency can down the road again. Gaetz and his closest colleagues in the House made the same deal with the opposition party, ousting McCarthy. 

It’s a game of kick the can, however you look at it.

Gaetz argues that McCarthy did not do what was required to bring fiscal responsibility, such as un-package spending bills. “We told you how to use the power of the purse: individual, single-subject spending bills that would allow us to have specific review, programmatic analysis and,” explained Gaetz, “that would allow us to zero out the salaries of the bureaucrats who have broken bad, targeted President Trump or cut sweetheart deals for Hunter Biden.”

But the deed is done. McCarthy’s out. Now, who to replace him?

Funny that no one mentions the wild plan to put Trump into the job — you know, the plan first floated after Election 2020?

It was such a snickered-at notion, just a goofy way of taking 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from Joe Biden.

Still, it was a plan. Only in the next few days and weeks will we learn if Gaetz really has one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability ballot access Voting

Time and Money

voting, democracy, elections

The Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, expects the state government to automate voter registration by the 2024 election. This will “save taxpayers time and money.”

Unless they opt out, prospective voters are to be enrolled when they get a state ID or a driver’s license at the DMV.

According to the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania, it will also make it easier for “uninterested, uninformed people to wield political power.” And perhaps also make it easier for ineligible noncitizens to vote — folks whom most Democrats, at least, strongly suspect would be more likely to vote Democrat were they somehow enabled.

It’s not fair to noncitizens, however, to register them without their consent and to send them the instruments of casting a ballot, when doing so is illegal and could ruin their chance to become citizens.

And registering and confusing immigrants has been happening in Pennsylvania — under a less lax system.

Shapiro pretends that security will be improved thereby, too. Automating voter registration adds “important levels of verification to the voter registration process.” But Pennsylvania doesn’t need to register people automatically to require a photo ID for registration or voting. (Which it doesn’t, currently; a paycheck or utility bill suffices.)

Political figures often complain about the expenses involved in special elections, recall elections, citizen initiatives, and other paraphernalia of democracy that cater to motivated, informed, active citizens — it is almost as if they regard this kind of voting as coming at their expense. It does not take long dealing with incumbent politicians to intuit that they would rather we just accept everything that they do without demur.

Freedom, democratic institutions and their safeguards, sound electoral procedures, voting machines, getting to the voting booth — even acquiring, filling out and mailing absentee ballots — all such things cost time and money.

We’d save time and money by not eating, too. But that’s hardly a triumph of economy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability folly national politics & policies

Will We Comply?

Donald Trump, Anthony Fauci, covid, masks

“To every COVID tyrant who wants to take away our freedom, hear these words,” intoned Donald J. Trump, eleven days ago, “we will not comply.”

The former president did not stop there: “So don’t even think about it. We will not shut down our schools. We will not accept your lockdowns. We will not abide by your mask mandates. And we will not tolerate your vaccine mandates.”

While Trump still boasts about his vaccine heroism, his supporters range from iffy to hostile on the subject. So Trump positions himself against mandates and for “freedom,” while in the past he was for masks and for lockdowns, as well as pushing the novel vaccines that cleverly (and perhaps dangerously) leveraged the spiked protein protuberances on SARS-CoV-2.

Meanwhile, Dr. Anthony Fauci, whom Trump brought into the world conversation about the pandemic in 2020, is similarly trying to position himself with some trickiness and . . . care. 

Fauci foresees mask recommendations, but no mandates — but note that he focuses on what federal bureaucrats say and do, not on what governors in the states do under federal bureaucrats’ advisement. 

CNN’s Michael Smerconish interrogated Fauci about the many studies showing that masks are ineffective against respiratory diseases like COVID. 

Fauci’s reply? Against the big study cited here in February, Fauci mentioned “other studies,” lamely and unconvincingly. He admitted that, overall — as affecting the course of the pandemic — “the data” about mask efficacy have been “less strong.” But “on an individual basis of someone protecting themselves, or protecting themselves from spreading to others,” Fauci still insists “there’s no doubt that there are many studies” showing “an advantage.”

If you buy that, you’ll wear masks forever — or comply with anything.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability First Amendment rights government transparency

Overly Broad Stonewalling

United States, censorship, intelligence agency, FBI, CIA, free speech, First Amendment

How specific do requests for records of unconstitutional activity have to be?

In February, the Federal Bureau of Investigation pretended an inability to fulfill America First Legal Foundation’s freedom-of-information request for documents about the FBI’s pre-election efforts to censor Twitter users. The agency declared the request to be “overly broad.”

What’s been “overly broad” is the policy of censorship, disinformation, and more by the Deep State using private partners. Meaning their real problem is doubtless that the requested documents are “overly incriminating,” too unmistakably what AFL wanted.

So the FBI stonewalled. 

And AFL has sued, in its complaint concluding that the agency’s “blanket denial of AFL’s FOIA request is contrary to law and should not stand.”

Thanks to evidence brought to light by other litigation and by Matt Taibbi’s reporting on Twitter’s internal records, none of us is just guessing that the FBI has acted to censor constitutionally protected discourse. We know that the FBI’s National Election Command Post flagged at least 25 Twitter accounts for “misinformation.”

But the only party to the censorship revealing relevant information voluntarily is Twitter itself, thanks to decisions by Twitter’s new management under Elon Musk.

With respect to everybody else colluding to censor social media — the FBI, the DOJ, the White House, Google, Facebook, etc. — looks like it’ll have to be lawsuits every step of the way.

The First Amendment’s stricture upon Congress to “make no law” abridging our “freedom of speech, or of the press,” does not allow the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and other agencies to simply subcontract. Nor are they free to mold public opinion. 

A government-controlled “press” is not a free press.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai and DALL-E2

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts